Quality Evaluation of Commercially Available Steels in Some Selected Nigerian Markets

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/334643855
Quality evaluation of commercially available steels in some selected Nigerian

markets
Article · July 2019
CITATIONS READS
0 85
7 authors, including:
Yusuf Lanre Shuaib-Babata Reuben Adewuyi

University of Ilorin The Federal Polytechnic Ado-Ekiti,Ado-Ekiti, Nigeria
49 PUBLICATIONS 64 CITATIONS 13 PUBLICATIONS 1 CITATION
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Ajao Kabiru Suleiman Ibrahim Owolabi Ambali

University of Ilorin University of Ilorin
14 PUBLICATIONS 16 CITATIONS 20 PUBLICATIONS 15 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Impact of Post-Weld Heat Treatment (PWHT) on the Hardness and Microstructure of Low Carbon Steel View project
Tiles Production View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Yusuf Lanre Shuaib-Babata on 24 July 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ANNALS of Faculty Engineering Hunedoara – International Journal of Engineering
Tome XVII [2019] | Fascicule 2 [May]
Y.L. SHUAIB-BABATA, 2.R.A. ADEWUYI, 3.K.S. AJAO, 4.I.O. AMBALI,

1,
5.
N.I. AREMU, 6.H.K. IBRAHIM, 7.J.M. ABDUL
QUALITY EVALUATION OF COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE STEELS IN

SOME SELECTED NIGERIAN MARKETS
Department of Materials & Metallurgical Engineering, University of Ilorin, NIGERIA
1,3,4,5.
2.
Olusegun Obasanjo Centre for Engineering Innovation, The Federal Polytechnic, Ado-Ekiti, NIGERIA
6.
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Ilorin, Ilorin, NIGERIA
7.
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Federal Polytechnic, Offa, NIGERIA
Abstract: The incessant building collapse and structural failures in Nigeria has renewed interests in the evaluation of the basic
properties of reinforcing steel bars in Nigeria markets, since local markets serve as major source of supply for the steels used in
construction and structural development. Thus, this study evaluated the quality of commercially available reinforcing steel bars
in some selected markets with a view to determine their suitability for structural applications. Various steel bars samples were
obtained from markets in four Nigeria cities. The basic physico-mechanical properties of the samples were examined and the
obtained results were compared with the specified parameters in Nigerian Industrial Standard (NIS), ASTM and British Standards.
Visual inspections revealed that most of the parameters that must to be indicated in identification marks on reinforcing steel
bars were absent. Results also showed that the samples contained the basic chemical constituents of steel and possessed
significant strengths and hardness values, but with noticeable inconsistencies in their contents. Thus, the level of compliance
with the specified properties in the standards needs improvement. To avoid incessant structural failures in the country, regular
and effective monitoring of the quality of steel bars in the markets for structural applications becomes imperative.
Keywords: compliance to standards, steel bars, strength, reinforcement, structural failures
1. INTRODUCTION
Steel is one of the prominent engineering materials in use today for construction purposes (Sambo et al., 2009). Essentially,
it is an alloy of iron and carbon, with carbon content up to roughly 2% (Higgins, 1998). In construction and modern
structures, such as building, bridges, dams, steel is predominantly used in reinforcing concrete. Appropriate knowledge of
properties and characteristics of steel is essential to ensure that reliable, safe and durable structures are attained in
structural development. Commercially available steels in Nigeria construction industries are obtained from both within
and outside the country (Shuaib-Babata & Tanimowo, 2016). Most indigenous construction companies in Nigeria procure
their reinforcing steels from open markets without any guiding technical information on their appropriate use. These steels
are tagged as foreign and local products in the markets, which are available in the sizes ranging from 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, 25
to 32 mm. Experience has shown that most structural failures are caused by improper selection and application of materials
(Shuaib-Babata & Tanimowo, 2016; Olanitori, 2011). Thus, the quality of concrete structure and its reinforcing component
(steel rods) are questionable in an event of building collapse or failure of structure (Arayela & Adam, 2001). Reinforcement
of concrete became imperative and indispensable because of the fact that steel bars embedded in the concrete resisted
all stresses in the concrete structures (Joshua, et al., 2018). In addition to the widespread use of steel as a crucial material
in the construction industries, steel also found applications in military hardware, power generation plants,
telecommunications, aviation, medical equipment, automobile components, as well as oil and gas sector. However, the
increasing recycling of scraps of iron and steel for steel production in Nigeria has adversely affected the quality of available
steel in Nigerian markets (Ohimain, 2013).
Several research works had been carried out on steel rods produced in Nigeria. The quality of steel rods available in Onitsha
markets was assessed and results showed that some products fall short of standard (Benneth & Julius, 2010). Ejeh and
Jibrin (2012) examined the tensile behaviour of reinforcing steel bars used in the Nigeria construction industries to
ascertain their level of conformity with relevant standards. A comparative assessment of the chemical and mechanical
properties of locally produced reinforcing steel bars from four indigenous steel industries that uses scraps as their major
raw materials was carried out. It was observed that steel rods used in Nigerian construction industries conformed to NIS
117:2004 standards’ specifications (Alabi & Onyeji, 2010). Also, an assessment of suitability of Nigerian made steel bars for
structural applications was done. The mechanical properties of selected reinforcing steel bars produced from two rolling
mills in Osun State, Nigeria were studied and observed that the investigated reinforcing steel bars samples possessed
reasonably high strength and ductility when compared with available standards (Alabi et al., 2016).
Conversely, the incessant rates of building collapse and structural failure in Nigeria call for re-evaluation of the basic
mechanical properties of steel samples in our local markets, since local markets serve as major source of supply for the
steels used in construction and structural development (Shuaib-Babata & Tanimowo, 2016). Figure 1 shows some of the
recently collapsed buildings in Ilorin as a result of inappropriate application of reinforcing steel bar. Thus, the objective of
103 | F a s c i c u l e 2
this work is to evaluate the mechanical and chemical properties of commercially available steel samples in some selected
Nigerian markets, with a view to determine their suitability for structural applications, so as to proffer solution to the
incessant building collapse and structural failure in Nigeria.
Figure 1: Some collapsed buildings in Ilorin (2017-2018). Source: Nigerian Society of Engineers, Ilorin Branch, 2019)
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
 Materials
Samples of reinforcement steel bar were obtained from major steel markets in Table 1: Samples’ Designation
Ilorin, Benin, Lagos and Kaduna (Figure 2). The samples of each selected steel bars S/N DESIGNATION SOURCES
obtained were cut and machined to standard dimensions in line with the ASTM 1 A, B, C, D Benin
Standards (A370-03a, 2005). The Samples were designated as presented in Table 2 E, F, G, H Ilorin
1. The diameters (sizes) of the selected samples bars for this study were 10, 12 and 3 I, J, K, L Kaduna
16 mm, in accordance with affirmation of Arum ( 2008) that 10,12 and 16 mm bars 4 M, N, O, P Lagos
are among the most widely used bar for local concrete reinforcement.
Figure 2: Some reinforcing rods at the building materials market sites in some of the selected cities in Nigeria
 Physical Assessment of the Test Specimens
The appearance of each of the steel samples was visually inspected at various market locations, to assess the following
parameters as indicated in Nigerian Industrial Standards (NIS 117:2004). The parameters include NIS mark, Batch reference,
Grade identification, Cast number, Name of manufacturer and Standard Organisation of Nigeria (SON) certification mark.
The sizes of the steel samples were measured using Digital Vernier Calliper.
104 | F a s c i c u l e 2
 Chemical Analysis of the Test Specimens

Chemical composition analysis of the samples was carried out using Optical Emission Spectrometer (Spectromaxx LMF06
Spectrometer, Serial Number: 15007384) at Midwal Engineering Services Limited, Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria. Three specimens
of each of the samples were grinded for 5 seconds on a metallographic abrasive grinding machine to reveal the cores of
the samples after which the flat surface was rinsed with methanol to eliminate contaminants. The samples were mounted
one after the other on the Optical Emission Spectrometer. The average percentage chemical composition of each steel
samples was obtained.
 Tensile Test
Practically, tensile strength of steel is difficult to determine without resulting to tensile test experiment (Kareem, 2009).
Therefore, to determine the strengths of the sample, tensile test was carried out. The tensile specimens were prepared in
accordance with the specifications in NIS 117:2004, as presented in Table 2. The tests were carried out in accordance with
the method of yield and tensile strengths determination specified in NIS 166:1982. The tensile properties of the specimens
were determined using Win Test Analysis on Testometric Materials Testing Machine (Type DBBMTCL-5000 Kg, Serial No.
17819) at National Centre for Agricultural Table 2: Guage Length and Total Length of the Specimens
Mechanization Universal testing Machine (NCAM NOMINAL DIAMETER GUAGE TOTAL LENGTH
S/N
UTM) Laboratory, Ilorin, Nigeria, based on ASTM (mm) LENGTH (mm) (mm)
A370-03a (2005) guidelines. Each of the machined 1 10.0 50.0 260.0
specimens was firmly gripped between the jaws of 2 12.0 60.0 280.0
the machine. The jaws were pulled apart at strain rate 3 16.0 80.0 540.0
of 10 mm/minute until the specimens are fractured. The values of the tensile stress and tensile strain at various points
(yield, peak, and fracture) for each specimen were obtained and documented from the system.
 Hardness Test
The hardness of each of the tested specimens was determined using Brinell hardness tester. The steel samples were placed
on the anvil of Brinell hardness testing machine one after the other and the capstan hand-wheel was turned until the
samples touch the indenter. A load of 3000 kg was gradually applied perpendicular to the surface of the steel specimens
through a steel ball indenter of 5mm diameter. This load was maintained for 15 seconds on each specimen. The diameter
of the indentations were viewed and measured with a graduated low power Brinell microscope. The values thus obtained
were converted to Brinell hardness number (BHN) using a Brinell hardness number chart.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results of the chemical analysis and mechanical testing of the reinforcing steel samples are presented in Tables 3 – 5
and Figures 3 – 14. These properties, such as chemical composition, strength and hardness, are important parameters for
evaluation of the steel quality.
 Physical Assessment of the Test Specimens
Through visual inspection of the steel samples right from the market sites, it was observed that most parameters stipulated
in NIS 117 (2004) to be indicated on label attached to every bundle of bars or each coil of reinforcing bars in Nigeria market
were virtually absent. The parameters include NIS mark, Batch reference, Grade identification, Cast number, Name of
manufacturer and Standard Organisation of Nigeria (SON) certification. This implies that most steel bars in Nigerian markets
as at the time of this study were of non-recognised origin.
The sizes of the reinforcing bars measured varied from the specified nominal diameters in the standards. For instance,
reinforcing bars of nominal diameter of 10 mm were found to be in the range of 9.58 to 9.80 mm, which implies that the
samples were within allowable range of sizes as specified in NIS 117 (2004). The standard specifies ± 6.5% and ± 4.5% as
allowable tolerance sizes for 8mm to10mm and 12 mm and above reinforcing steel bars respectively (NIS 117, 2004). There
is need for effective routine monitoring (inspection and testing) of steel products in Nigeria markets by the appropriate
authorities, especially SON, to measure the level of compliance to the standards and ascertain strict compliance to it. This
will help to prevent turning Nigeria building materials markets to dumping grounds and also reduce drastically the
incessant rates of structural failures in Nigeria. The use of inappropriate materials, especially reinforcing bars, of lesser
quality is one of the major factors leading to structural failures in Nigeria (NIS 166:1982; Ayodeji, 2011).
 Chemical Composition Analysis of the Test Specimens
In designation of steel, chemical composition plays prominent roles (Khurmi & Gupta, 2005). Most institutes and
professional bodies, like American Iron and Steel Institute considered chemical composition as important factor in
categorization of steels (AZoM, 2012; MIT, 1999). To define mechanical properties of steel, chemical composition is a
fundamental factor (AZO Minning, 2018). From evaluation of carbon percentage contents of steel through chemical
analysis, the class of steel can be determined (Kareem, 2009). Tables 3 - 5 show the level of various elemental components
in Nigerian commercial reinforcement steel bar samples. The standard values are presented with the obtained results in
Table 3 for better evaluation.
105 | F a s c i c u l e 2
The experimental results in Tables 3- 5 show that the samples’ constituents were essentially iron and carbon with some
other minor elements, such as Nitrogen, Silicon, Manganese, Copper, Chromium and Sulphur, as expected of a steel
sample (The Balance, 2019). The percentage of iron in 10 mm size samples ranged between 97.3 and 98.6% as the highest
elemental concentration in the steel (Table 3). Specimens A – D, E – H, I - L, and M – P respectively contained 97.7 – 98.1%,
97.4 – 98.6%, 97.8 – 98.3% and 97.3 – 98.8%. Generally, the percentages of carbon in the samples range between 0.17
and 0.28%, with samples A, B, C and D having 0.17 - 0.28%, samples E, F, G and H having 0.2 – 0.4%, samples I, J, K and L
having 0.17 – 0.31% and samples M,N,O and P possessed 0.21 – 0.32%.
Table 3: Elemental constituents of commercial 10mm reinforcement bars and specified values in the standards
Percentage Elemental Composition (Wt %)
Samples
Fe C Ni Si Mn P Cu Cr S
A 97.7 0.27 0.130 0.016 0.36 0.190 0.37 0.33 0.20
B 98.1 0.17 0.210 0.150 0.37 0.510 0.31 0.10 0.05
C 98.0 0.20 0.150 0.180 0.61 0.031 0.47 0.21 0.09
D 97.8 0.28 0.060 0.015 0.53 0.110 0.30 0.26 0.17
E 98.3 0.35 0.140 0.240 0.81 0.021 0.05 0.04 0.01
F 98.6 0.20 0.140 0.210 0.41 0.016 0.05 0.12 0.01
G 98.1 0.27 0.002 0.160 0.72 0.013 0.40 0.17 0.02
H 97.4 0.40 0.180 0.220 0.72 0.093 0.28 0.16 0.07
I 98.3 0.30 0.090 0.015 0.48 0.052 0.23 0.03 0.18
J 97.8 0.21 0.160 0.021 0.69 0.012 0.40 0.21 0.04
K 98.0 0.17 0.230 0.050 0.31 0.510 0.29 0.10 0.11
L 98.1 0.20 0.130 0.191 0.63 0.050 0.37 0.19 0.11
M 98.8 0.21 0.160 0.030 0.39 0.012 0.30 0.02 0.04
N 97.3 0.31 0.210 0.072 0.51 0.510 0.29 0.21 0.17
O 97.7 0.31 0.190 0.210 0.49 0.190 0.13 0.19 0.11
P 98.1 0.32 0.070 0.230 0.31 0.040 0.21 0.30 0.07
STANDARD VALUES
NIS 117 0.35 0.012 0.300 1.20 0.040 0.25 0.04
ASTM A615 0.3 0.400 1.00 0.050 0.05
BS 4449 0.25 0.400 1.00 0.050 0.05
AISI 1018 99.26 0.2 0.050 0.90 0.04
The percentage level of carbon in the samples (Tables 3-5) conforms to the view that the carbon steel contains tiny amount
of carbon much less than 1.0% carbon (Total Materia, 2019). Thus, the steel samples can be classified as carbon steel.
Though, the level of compliance to the NIS 117 (2004) and BS 4449 (2005) standards regarding the carbon contents in 10
mm size reinforcement bars available commercially in Nigeria markets was 56.25%. This implies that 43.75% of the
samples contained percentage carbon less than 0.25% stipulated in NIS117 (2004) and BS 4449 (2005) standards as
minimum requirement.
Manganese (Mn) plays a vital role in the properties of the steel, most especially on its hardness and strength (Herring, 2010;
AZoM, 2016). In the steel samples, Mn ranged between 0.31 and 0.72%. This implies that the values were lesser than 0.9 –
1.0% stipulated as required values in the steel (BS 4449; ASTM A615-72; AISI 1018). This is likely to affect the strength and
hardness of the steel samples, as Mn is a key component of steel (AZoM, 2016). In the samples, values of silicon (Si) were
found to be in the range of 0.015 – 0.24%, which were lesser than 0.4% required value in reinforcement steel bars as
specified in the standards (BS 4449; ASTM A615-72). Due to lower value of Si in the steel, the ductility, tensile and yield
strength and hardness of the steel may be low, since Si as a deoxidizer and degasifier increases ductility, tensile and yield
strength, hardness, forgeability and magnetic permeability of steel (Special Steel China Supplier, 2019).
Sulphur (S) in the samples was within 0.01 and 1.18%. NIS 117:04 recommended 0.04% as required value in reinforcement
rod in Nigeria, while ASTM A370-03a (2003), BS 4449 (2005) and AISI 1018 stipulated 0.05% as the Sulphur standard value
in the steel rod. The results (Table 3) reveal that 62.5% of the samples had sulphur contents greater than the NIS 117:04
specified value (0.05%). However, 12.5% samples had exactly 0.04% Sulphur content as specified in ASTM A615-72, BS
4449 and AISI 1018, while 25.0% samples had less than 0.04% Sulphur content. Presence of Sulphur in steel has the
tendency to lower its ductility and notched impact toughness, but improves toughness (Jeremey, 2015). Machinability of
steel is improved if sulphur is combined with manganese, but lowers the steel ductility and impact strength (Leonghuat,
2019). With Sulphur, manganese has the ability to form manganese sulphide (MnS) that is of beneficial to machining
(Leonghuat, 2019). The most pronounced segregation of all steel accompanying elements is produced, if steel is high in
sulphur and low in manganese (Satyendra, 2014).
In all the 10 mm samples, the Nitrogen (Ni) contents ranged between 0.002 and 0.23%, which were greater than either
0.012% or 0.05% recommended in NIS 117:04 and AISI 1018 standards respectively. This may enhance the tensile strength,
hardness and machinability of the steel, but may also have embrittling effect on the steel (Jeremey, 2015). Presence of
high content of nitrogen in the steel samples may also reduce their toughness and ductility. The results (Table 3) show
that the phosphorous content in 10 mm samples was between 0.012 and 0.51%. Though, NIS 117:04 and AISI 1018/BS
106 | F a s c i c u l e 2
4449/ASTM A615-72 respectively recommended 0.04 and 0.05% (BS 4449; ASTM A615-72; AISI 1018) as the level of
Phosphorous in reinforcement steel bar. The analysis of the results shows that the steel samples with phosphorous values
below 0.04% were 50.00%, while 6.24% samples had exactly 0.04% and 76.00% samples had phosphorous beyond the
specified value. The presence of phosphorous in steel improves its strength, machinability and atmospheric corrosion
resistance, but decreases ductility and notch toughness (Satyendra, 2014). To improve machinability of steel, higher
phosphorous (P) is specified in low carbon steel (Leonghuat, 2019; Total Materia, 2017).
Table 4: Elemental constituents of commercial 12mm reinforcement bars
Samples
A 97.6 0.40 0.200 0.26 0.60 0.057 0.27 0.11 0.20
B 98.4 0.36 0.040 0.10 0.62 0.021 0.05 0.37 0.01
C 98.2 0.28 0.220 0.21 0.05 0.060 0.40 0.02 0.18
D 97.8 0.32 0.020 0.21 0.35 0.020 0.37 0.17 0.32
E 97.5 0.35 0.190 0.19 0.53 0.090 0.33 0.19 0.16
F 98.3 0.25 0.120 0.18 0.31 0.057 0.37 0.31 0.07
G 98.2 0.31 0.250 0.34 0.18 0.030 0.37 0.20 0.11
H 97.8 0.23 0.152 0.10 1.11 0.040 0.31 0.04 0.20
I 97.5 0.39 0.110 0.22 0.34 0.161 0.34 0.31 0.18
J 97.9 0.41 0.261 0.15 0.74 0.063 0.05 0.25 0.01
K 97.8 0.37 0.031 0.33 0.66 0.050 0.17 0.04 0.15
L 98.4 0.27 0.210 0.16 0.34 0.030 0.04 0.31 0.03
M 97.6 0.23 0.131 0.29 0.24 0.124 0.25 0.39 0.28
N 98.5 0.20 0.172 0.27 0.15 0.041 0.33 0.20 0.09
O 98.1 0.25 0.150 0.20 0.41 0.070 0.31 0.29 0.17
P 98.3 0.31 0.131 0.21 0.61 0.020 0.05 0.14 0.11
The iron content in 12 mm samples of the bar generally ranged between 97.5 and 98.5%. Samples A – D, E – H, I – L and
M – P respectively possessed 97.6 – 98.4%, 97.5 – 98.3%, 97.5 – 98.4%, and 97.6 – 98.5% iron contents. The carbon contents
in the steel bar samples were between 0.20 and 0.4%, which shows that the samples are carbon steels which may either
belong to low or medium carbon steel class. The samples’ nitrogen (Ni) contents (Table 4) were also between 0.03 and
0.26%, which were higher than the NIS 117 (2004) specified value (0.012%). Though, nitrogen enhances mechanical and
corrosion properties of steel, but high nitrogen content in steel may also cause inconsistency in the mechanical properties
of the steel (Sureshkumar et al., 2011; Satyendra, 2013; Elmaghrabi, 2015). The steel samples contained silicon (0.1 – 0.34%),
values below the ASTM and BS recommended value (0.4%) (BS 4449, 2005; ASTM A615-72, 1973). This may adversely affect
the ductility, tensile and yield strength and hardness of the steel (Special Steel China Supplier, 2019). Manganese (Mn) in
the steel samples (0.05 – 1.11%) were also lower than recommended value of 0.90% (AISI 1018) and 1.00% (BS 4449, 2005;
ASTM A615-72, 1973), except sample H that contained 1.11%. Presence of Mn has the tendency to increase hardness of
the steel (Leonghuat, 2019; Total Materia, 2017; Satyendra, 2013).
The phosphorous content in the samples was between 0.020 and 0.057%. The specified level of phosphorous in
reinforcement steel bar in the standards are 0.04 (NIS 117, 2004) and 0.05% (BS 4449, 2005; ASTM A615-72, 1973). Analysis
of the results reveals inconsistency in phosphorous content in Nigerian commercial reinforcement bars. The value varied
from one specimen to another, in respect of size and location of purchase. Sulphur content in the steel samples varied
from 0.01 to 0.32%. Though, 0.04 (NIS 117, 2004) and 0.05% (BS 4449, 2005; ASTM A615-72, 1973; AISI 1018) are specified
as required sulphur level in reinforcement steel bar in the standards. These results also revealed inconsistency in the
chemical compositions of the steel samples in Nigeria markets, since wide variations in the content were obtained.
Table 5: Elemental constituents of commercial 16mm reinforcement bars
Samples
A 97.9 0.24 0.160 0.14 0.37 0.030 0.40 0.16 0.20
B 98.3 0.23 0.020 0.31 0.26 0.060 0.27 0.12 0.18
C 97.5 0.33 0.110 0.26 0.81 0.060 0.30 0.15 0.25
D 97.7 0.42 0.070 0.23 0.91 0.004 0.25 0.33 0.01
E 98.1 0.13 0.160 0.32 0.90 0.021 0.12 0.15 0.06
F 98.0 0.30 0.170 0.21 0.77 0.031 0.11 0.02 0.2
G 98.5 0.13 0.090 0.15 0.47 0.050 0.19 0.03 0.19
H 98.1 0.17 0.110 0.12 0.70 0.020 0.12 0.17 0.17
I 97.8 0.31 0.130 0.33 0.61 0.070 0.17 0.14 0.05
J 98.3 0.21 0.170 0.03 0.45 0.034 0.27 0.21 0.13
K 97.9 0.31 0.170 0.15 0.50 0.050 0.23 0.07 0.18
L 97.7 0.23 0.130 0.19 0.67 0.050 0.37 0.20 0.11
M 98.7 0.23 0.070 0.15 0.37 0.050 0.20 0.03 0.17
N 97.9 0.33 0.170 0.21 0.71 0.020 0.17 0.11 0.10
O 97.6 0.33 0.270 0.27 0.67 0.070 0.21 0.11 0.21
P 98.3 0.19 0.210 0.03 0.27 0.310 0.29 0.10 0.17
107 | F a s c i c u l e 2
Table 5 shows the iron and carbon contents in 16 mm commercial reinforcement bar. The iron content in the steel bar
samples of 16 mm size ranged between 97.6 and 98.7%, while the carbon content ranged between 0.13 and 0.42%.
Analysis of the results indicates that 25% of the samples had carbon below the required 2.0% carbon content for carbon
steel. This critically needs to be looked into, as carbon content plays significant role in determining the strength, hardness
and ductility of the steel (Dmitri, 2019; Al-Janabi, 2018; Jena, 2017; Effect of Adding Carbon to Steel, 2019). The levels of
other elements in 16 mm steel samples (Table 5) followed the trend in 10 and 12 mm samples. The steel either belongs
to low or medium carbon steel class, irrespective of their sizes, considering the samples’ carbon contents. There were
variations in contents of phosphorous, Mn, Si and other elements in the steel samples.
 Mechanical Properties
In classifying structural steels, mechanical properties are fundamental factors (AZO Mining, 2018). Hence, it is highly
important to investigate the minimum standards for the mechanical properties in order to determine the steels’
performance characteristics. The vital mechanical properties considered in this study include yield strength, tensile
strength, ductility and hardness. Are very important mechanical properties of steel (AZO Mining, 2018). This is line with
the view of Azo mining that yield and tensile strength Thus, the discussion of the results in this study will be fundamentally
based on yield strength, tensile strength, ductility and hardness.
Figures 3 - 14 show the results of tensile properties of the samples and that of some standards, which comprise of yield
stress, ultimate tensile stress and ductility values. In selection and inspection of steel, tensile stress or yield stress serves as
the main criterion (Khurmi & Gupta, 2005).
800
Yield Strength
600
(N/mm2)
400
200
0
Samples of 10 mm commercial steel bars from different locations with some standards
Figure 3: Yield strength values for various 10 mm commercial reinforcement steel bars and standards
In Figure 3, some of the samples yield strength values were comparable with various standards, such as ASTM A615, AISI
1018, BS 4449 and NIS 117 values. The samples’ yield strength values for reinforcement bars obtained from Benin (samples
A – D), Ilorin (samples E – H), Kaduna (samples I – L) and Lagos (samples M – P) respectively were in the range of 347.43
– 437.67 N/mm2, 357.10 – 745.09 N/mm2, 352.14 – 457.80 N/mm2 and 384.42 – 530.92 N/mm2. Generally, 18.75% samples
had yield strength values lesser than 360.00 N/mm2 AISI 1018 recommended yield strength value for reinforcement iron
bar, 43.75% samples had strength lesser than 420.00 N/mm2 ASTM A615 recommended yield strength value for
reinforcement iron bar, and 56.25% had yield strength values greater than 420.00 N/mm2 ASTM A615, 1973 recommended
yield strength. NIS 117, 2004 and BS 4449, 2005 recommended 500.00 N/mm2 as specified yield strength for the bar. By
these standards, only 25.00% had values equal to or greater than the specified strength. The level of the yield strength in
Nigerian commercial reinforcement steel bars was not uniform. This calls for the need to be sure of the materials’
parameters, through experimental analysis, before they are employed for any engineering application to avoid structural
failure in service.
30
Percentage Elongation
20
10
(%)
Figure 4: Percentage elongations for various 10 mm commercial reinforcement steel bars and standard
Figure 4 shows 10 mm samples’ percentage elongation values compared with various standards. NIS 117/ASTM A615, BS
4449 and AISI 1018 respectively recommended 12, 14 and 15% as specific elongation value for reinforcement steel bar.
108 | F a s c i c u l e 2
The samples exhibited percentage elongation between 7.02 and 25.51%. Samples with percentage elongation value
below the standards’ recommended values (Arum, 2008; BS 4449, 2005; ASTM A615-72, 1973; AISI 1018; AZoM, 2016) were
25% (4 out of 16 samples).
The samples ultimate tensile strength (UTS) as shown in Figure 5 ranged between 329.92 and 722.22 N/mm2, with 12.5%
samples having UTS value below 400 N/mm2 AISI 1018 recommended value (AZoM, 2016) and 37.50% samples with UTS
below NIS 117:04 and BS 4449/ASTM A615 recommended values of 500 and 620 N/mm2 respectively.
800
Strength (N/mm2)
Ultimate Tensile
600
400
200
0
Figure 5: Ultimate tensile strengths for various 10 mm commercial reinforcement steel bars and standards
20
15
Hardness (Rc)
10
5
0
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
Samples of 10 mm commercial steel bars from different locations
Figure 6: Hardness values for various 10 mm commercial reinforcement steel bars and standards
Figure 6 shows variation in the hardness values of the samples, ranging from 13.47 to 18.01. The hardness values were
relatively high; this might be reflection of the high carbon contents in the steel samples. Carbon content enhances the
hardness of steel (Al-Janabi, 2018; Capudean, 2003; Quora, 2019).
600
Yield Strength
400
(N/mm2)
200
0
Figure 7: Yield strength values of various 12 mm commercial reinforcement steel bars and standards
In 12 mm samples as shown in Figure 7, the value of the yield strength exhibited were between 325.87 and 542.80 N/mm2
with specimens A – D, E – H, I – L and M – P respectively having values ranged from 386.56 – 542.80 N/mm2, 332.01 –
421.19 N/mm2, 377.64 – 534.20 N/mm2 and 325.87 – 396.97 N/mm2. Analysis of this result shows that 50% of the samples
exhibited yield strength value below the NIS, ASTM and BS specified values of 420.00 N/mm2 (NIS 117, 2004; BS 4449, 2005;
ASTM A615-72, 1973), while 31.25% samples were with values below 370.00 N/mm2 AISI 1018 specified yield strength
(AISI 1018).
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 8: Percentage elongations of various 12 mm commercial reinforcement steel bars and standards
109 | F a s c i c u l e 2
The percentage elongations exhibited by the samples were between 4.7 and 28.9% (Figure 8). Analysis of the results show
that 25% of the samples had percentage elongation below the minimum value (12%) specified in NIS 117 and ASTM A615.
Meanwhile, BS 4449 and AISI 1018 respectively specified 14 and 15% as the minimum elongation percentage required.
Carbon contents in the steel samples reflect in the value of the samples’ ductility. Ductility of steel samples decreases with
increase in their carbon contents (Hughes, 2009). The majority of the samples had significant level of ductility which made
them to be suitable for applications where appreciable level of ductility is required.
The ultimate tensile strength exhibited by 12 mm samples varied from 471.02 to 612.17 N/mm2, with samples A – D, E –
H, I – L and M – P respectively having strength values of 498.92 – 580.09 N/mm2, 459.71 – 612.17 N/mm2, 528.92 – 587.00
N/mm2, 471.02 – 574.61 N/mm2 (Figure 9). Considering AISI 1018 specified UTS value (440.00 N/mm2), all the samples had
adequate strength required of reinforcement steel bar. Meanwhile, 75% of the samples had UTS value above 500.00
N/mm2 specified in NIS 117(2004). Though, none of the samples had strength up to ASTM A615 and BS 4449 requirement
(620.00 N/mm2) (BS 4449, 2005; ASTM A615-72, 1973). Averagely, the strength values exhibited by majority of the samples
were satisfactory as meeting the required strength for reinforcement steel bar application in Nigeria. However, there is still
the need to put in place strategy to eliminate the existence of little proportion of reinforcement steel bars in the market
with deficiency in strength requirements.
800
600
400
200
0
The value of the samples’ hardness ranged between 11.6 and 21.0 as shown in Figure 11. The samples’ strength and
hardness values are higher as the level of carbon in the samples, while the percentage elongation reduces. Studies have
shown that beyond 1.5% carbon in steel causes appreciable reduction in its ductility and malleability (Al-Janabi, 2018;
Shodhganga, 2019). Sample H with 1.11% Mn, which was a bit higher than the specified Mn value (0.9 – 1.0%) in BS 4449,
ASTM A615 and AISI 1018, exhibited 14.5 as its hardness value. This is a reflection of Mn having tendency to increase
hardness of steel (AZoM, 2016; Leonghuat, 2018; Cabrea, et al., 2014). By increasing the hardenability of the steel, Mn
promotes its greater strength (Satyendra, 2013).
30
Hardness (Rc)
20
10
0
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
800
Yield Strength
(N/mm2)
600
400
200
0
Figure 11: Yield strength values of various 16 mm commercial reinforcement steel bars and standards
110 | F a s c i c u l e 2
The 16 mm diameter Samples had yield strength ranged from 278.39 to 593.01 N/mm2 as shown in Figure 11. The samples’
yield strengths were within the AISI 1018 specified strength (370.00 N/mm2) (AISI 1018). Meanwhile, 56.30% of the samples
had yield strength below ASTM A615 (1973) and NIS 117 (2004) specified yield strength (420.00 N/mm2). The study reveals
that carbon has effects on the samples’ strength.
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 12: Percentage elongations of various 16 mm commercial reinforcement steel bars and standards
The 16 mm samples had percentage elongation greater than the minimum specified value in the standards (NIS 117, 2004;
BS 4449, 2005; ASTM A615-72, 1973; AISI 1018) as shown in Figure 12. It implies that the available 16 mm size commercial
reinforcement steel bars in the selected areas were suitable for applications that required the use of ductile steel bars. The
UTS exhibited by the samples in Figure 13 were also within 328.85 and 719.83 N/mm2. Analysis of the results in Figure 13
indicates that 56.25% of the samples had UTS below the specified values in the standards (NIS 117, 2004; BS 4449, 2005;
AISI 1018). Though, 75.00% of the samples had UTS either equal or greater than 440 N/mm2 specified in AISI 1018 as
minimum UTS required in steel reinforcement bar. The higher carbon content in the steel samples resulted to higher yield
stress and ultimate tensile stress, and probably good wear resistance (Calik et al., 2010).
800
600
400
200
0
30
Hardness (Rc)
20
10
0
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q
Majorly, low carbon contents in the steel reflects low strength and hardness; and higher percentage elongation, except in
the case of samples D, F, H, L and P. Sample C with low carbon content of 0.13% exhibited high hardness value of 12.4%
(Figure 14). This might be attributed to presence of moderately high value of Mn (0.9%) in the sample. Sample G with
0.47% Mn and 0.13% carbon also exhibited low hardness of 7.43%. This is a reflection of effect of Mn. Generally, there were
indications that the mechanical properties of the steel bar were sensitive to the carbon content, as the results show
increased in the strength and hardness of the samples with increased carbon contents, while their percentage elongation
values reduced. This is in line with the view that higher carbon content in iron leads to higher strength, hardness and wear
resistance, but lower ductility, weldability and toughness capabilities of the iron (of the Properties and Applications of
Materials, 2019).
The level at which the mechanical properties of the samples complied with the specified values in the standards were low.
This is an indication of poor quality assurances on available commercial reinforcement bars in Nigeria, which might have
111 | F a s c i c u l e 2
contributed to frequent structural failure in the country. Studies revealed that the use of substandard materials, non-
availability of local standards, the use of quacks of professionals, non-enforcement of codes or regulations, corruption,
poor maintenance culture, lack of adequate supervision, design error, natural phenomenon and excessive loading were
major factors contributing to frequent structural failures in Nigeria (Ayodeji, 2011; Tyagher et al., 2011; Kolawole, 2018;
Ayedun et al., 2011; Akinyemi et al., 2011). Out of all these contributing factors, greater than 50% was attributed to poor
quality of materials and workmanship (Ayodeji, 2011; Ayedun et al., 2011). This study thereby calls for the need to enhance
the authority (power) of the regulatory bodies in Nigeria, such as SON, Custom services, among others, for effective
regulatory of in-flow of steel bars into Nigeria steel markets. There is also a need for significant and regular inspection of
steel bars in the markets and products from locally available industries. The workers of the regulatory bodies need to be
well trained, equipped with necessary and modern facilities, and well remunerated to avoid corruption.
Regular and effective experimental analysis of commercially available steel bars in Nigeria is highly essential. This will help
to reveal the level of compliance with the standards’ specified values in terms of steel properties. This process will also
help to trace the source of less quality bars in the market. The engineering professionals and other users of the available
reinforcement steel bars in Nigeria need to collaborate (cooperate) with the regulatory bodies to expose the source and
availability of less quality steel bars in Nigeria markets. This can be effectively carry out through their various professional
bodies, like Nigerian Society of Engineers (NSE), National Association of Technologists in Engineering (NATE), National
Association of Engineering Craftsmen (NAEC), among others.
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions were drawn from the results and analysis of this study:
 The steels in Nigeria markets had sizes within allowable range of nominal sizes as specified in Nigerian Industrial
Standards. But, the available steels in the markets were of unknown source, since the required parameters in the
identification marks were not provided. Meanwhile, there were wide variations in their carbon contents which call for
proper analysis of the material before use for any structural development. Though, significant numbers of the steels in
market had ductility values within the specified range in the standards.
 The study discovered inconsistencies in the values of elements in the steel samples, which may lead to inadequacies
in the mechanical properties of the steel.
 Generally, the level of compliance to the specified properties in the standards was low, which requires much
improvement. This is an indication of poor quality assurances on available commercial reinforcement bars in Nigeria, a
major factor that might have been contributing to incessant structural failures in the country.
 There is need to put strategies in place by the regulatory bodies in Nigeria to effectively control in-flow of steel bars
into the markets from un-identified sources. This calls for regular and effective inspection / monitoring of steels in the
market to ensure adequate compliance with the specifications in the standards.
References
[1] AISI 1018 Mild/Low Carbon Steel, Available: http://www.yandreou.com/
[2] Akinyemi, A. P.; Dare, G. M.; Anthony, A. I. and Dabara, D. I.: Building Collapse in Nigeria: Issues and Challenges, Conference
of the International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 9(1), 99–108, 2016.
[3] Alabi, A. G. F. and Onyeji, L. I.: Analysis and Comparative Assessments of Locally Produced Reinforcing Steel Bars For
Structural Purpose”, Journal of Research Information in Civil Engineering, 7(2), 49 - 60, 2010.
[4] Alabi, A. G. F., Ayoade, A. O., Odusote, J. K. and Akanni, A. A.: Assessment of Suitability of Nigerian Made Steel Bars for
Structural Applications, The Journal of the Association of Professional Engineers of Trinidad and Tobago, .44(2), 17-23, 2016.
[5] Al-Janabi, L.: Carbon Steels, 2018, Available: www.uobabylon.edu.iq/eprints/pubdoc_12_22913_6027.doc
[6] Arayela, O. and Adam, J. J.: Building Disasters and Failures in Nigeria: Causes and Remedies, AARCHES Journal, 1(6), 25-30,
2001.
[7] Arum, C.: Verification of Properties of Concrete Reinforcement Bars: Nigeria as a Case Study, A Journal of Indoor and Built
Environment (SAGE Journals), 17(4), 370-376, 2008
[8] ASTM A370-03a: Standard Test Methods and Definitions for Mechanical Testing of Steel Products, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2003.
[9] ASTM A615-72, A616-72, A617-72: Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Part 4, Standards for Deformed Steel Bar, Philadelphia,
American Society for Testing and Materials, 1973.
[10] Ayedun, C. A.; Durodola, O. D. and Akinjare, O. A.: An Empirical Ascertainment of the Causes of Building Failure and Collapse
in Nigeria, Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 3(1), 313, 2011.
[11] Ayodeji, O.: An Examination of the Causes and Effects of Building Collapse in Nigeria, Journal of Design and Built
Environment, 9, 37–47, 2011,
[12] AZO Mining: Composition of Structural Steel, 2018, Masteel UK Limited,
Available: https://www.azomining.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=1392, [Accessed 29 December, 2018]
[13] AZoM: The Properties and Effects of Manganese as an Alloying Element, 2016. Available:
112 | F a s c i c u l e 2
[14] https://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=13027, [Accessed 19 December, 2018]

a. AZoM: AISI 1018 Mild/Low Carbon Steel, 2012. Available: http://www.azom.com/article.aspx?Article=6115, [Accessed 19
October, 2016].
[15] Benneth, C. C. and Julius, O. O: Assessment of the Quality of Steel Rods Available in Onitsha Market: In View of the Role of
Poor Quality Rods in Building Failures in Nigeria, The Pacific Journal of Science and Technology, 11(1), 55-59, 2010.
[16] British Standard (BS 4449), “Steel for the Reinforcement of Concrete – Weldable Reinforcing Steel - Bar, Coil and Decoiled
Product – Specification”, United Kingdom: BSI - British Standards Institution, 2005
[17] Cabrera, C.; Moron, C. and Garcia, A.: Learning Process of the Steel Use in Building Engineering Students, American Journal
of Educational Research, 2(6), 366-371, 2014.
[18] Calik, A.; Duzgun, A.; Sahin, O and Ucar, N.: Effect of Carbon Content on the Mechanical Properties of Medium Carbon
Steels, Verlag der Zeitschrift fu¨r Naturforschung, Tu¨bingen, 468-472, 2010, Available:
http://www.znaturforsch.com/s65a/s65a0468.pdf
[19] Capudean, B.: Metallurgy Matters: Carbon Content, Steel Classifications, and Alloy Steels, Practical Welding Today, 2003,
Available: https://www.thefabricator.com/
[20] Dmitri, K.: Carbon Steels. Available: SubsTech Substances & Technologies, Available: http://www.substech.com/
[21] Effect of Adding Carbon to Steel, 2019, | Study.com, Available: https://study.com/academy/lesson/effect-of-adding-
carbon-to-steel.html,
[22] Effects of Mn, P, S, Si & V on the Mechanical Properties of Steel, Available:
https://www.leonghuat.com/articles/elements.htm
[23] Ejeh, S. P and Jibrin, M. U.: Tensile Tests on Reinforcing Steel Bars in the Nigerian Construction Industry, IOSR Journal of
Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE). 4(2), 06-12, 2012.
[24] Elmaghrabi, A.: Nitrogen Effect in Steel, Magzter, STEEL 360 | 30 Jan. 2015, Available: https://www.magzter.com/
[25] Herring, D.: The Influence of Manganese in Steel, FNA 2012 (October 2 -3, 2010, Nashville TN. Available: foundrygate.com/
[26] Higgins, R. A.: Properties of Engineering Materials, 2nd Edition, New Delhi, India, Viva Books Private Ltd., 1998.
[27] Hughes, S. E.: Materials and Their Weldability, in A Quick Guide to Welding and Weld Inspection, Woodhead Publishing
Series in Welding and Other Joining Technologies, Science Direct, 2009, 36-48, Available:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/carbon-steel
[28] Jena, S. S.: What is the Role of Carbon in Making Steel?, 2017. Available: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-role-of-
carbon-in-making-steel,
[29] Jeremey: Chemical Elements and Effects on Steel Mechanical Properties, 2015, Available:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/21-chemical-elements-effects-steel-mechanical-properties-jeremy-he/
[30] Joshua, O.; Olusola, K. O.; Oyeyemi, K. D.; Ogunde, A. O.; Amusan, L. M.; Nduka, D. O.; Abuka-Joshua, J.: Data of the Properties
of Rebar Steel Brands in Lagos, Nigerian Market Used in Reinforced Concrete Applications, Data in Brief, 1-5, 2018.
[31] Kareem, B.: Tensile and Chemical Analysis of Selected Steel Bars Produced in Nigeria, A.U. J. T., 13(1), 23-33, 2009.
[32] Khurmi, R. S. and Gupta, J.K.: A Text Book of Machine Design, New-Delhi 110055, India: Eurasia Publishing House PVT, 2005.
[33] Kolawole, O. M.: Assessment of Building Collapse in Nigeria: The Major Causes and Practical Remedies”, Civil and
Environmental Research, 10(5), 35-40, 2018.
[34] MIT: Chemical Composition of Structural Steels, In Design of Steel Structures, MIT: Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering (Spring Semester), 1999.
[35] Ndaliman, M. B.: An Assessment of Mechanical Properties of Medium Carbon Steel under Different Quenching Media, AU
J T, 10(2), 100-104, 2006.
[36] Nigerian Industrial Standard, NIS 117: Specification for Steel Bars for the Reinforcement of Concrete, Abuja, Nigeria:
Standard Organisation of Nigeria, 2004
[37] Nigerian Industrial Standard, NIS 166: Method of Tensile Testing of Metals, Abuja, Nigeria: Standard Organisation of Nigeria
(SON), 1982.
[38] Ohimain, E. I.: Scrap Iron and Steel Recycling in Nigeria, Greener Journal of Environmental Management and Public Safety,
2(1), 1-9, 2013.
[39] Olanitori, L. J.: Causes of Structural Failures of a Building: Case Study of a Building at Oba-Ile, Akure, Journal of Building
Appraisal, 6(3/4), 277-284, 2011.
[40] Properties and Applications of Materials, Available: https://nptel.ac.in/
[41] Quora: What is the role of carbon in making steel?, Available: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-role-of-carbon-in-
making-steel
[42] Sanmbo, B.; David, E.; Adeosun, S. and Olatunde, S.: Challenges of Producing Properties Construction Steel Bars in West
Africa: Case Study of Nigeria Steel Industry, Journal of Materials and Materials Characterization and Engineering, 8(4), 283-
292, 2009.
[43] Satyendra: Nitrogen in Steels, ISPAT, May 23, 2013. Available: http://ispatguru.com/nitrogen-in-steels/
[44] Satyendra (2014), Phosphorous in Steel, ISPAT Digest, 2014
113 | F a s c i c u l e 2
[45] Satyendra: Alloying Elements and their Influence on Properties of Steel, ISPAT Digest, 2013. Available:
http://ispatguru.com/alloying-elements-and-their-influence-on-properties-of-steel/
[46] Satyendra: Manganese in Steel, ISPAT Digest, September 29, 2014, Available: http://ispatguru.com/manganese-in-steels/
[47] Satyendra: Alloying Elements and their Influence on Properties of Steel, ISPAT Digest, 2014, Available:
http://ispatguru.com/phosphorus-in-steels/
[48] Shodhganga: Corrosion and its Importance, Available:
http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/204086/8/08_chapter%201.pdf
[49] Shuaib-Babata, Y. L. and Tanimowo, S. O.: Properties Assessment of some Commercial Steels from Selected Major Steel
Markets in Nigeria, 15th Annual International Conference/Nigerian Materials Congress (NIMACON 2016), Ahmadu Bello
University, Zaria, Kaduna State, Nigeria, 1, 593-598, 2016.
[50] Special Steel China Supplier: Effects Of Common Alloying Element s in Steel, Available:
http://www.otaisteel.com/technical-support/effects-of-common-alloying-elements-in-steel/
[51] Sureshkumar, P. R.; Pawar, D. R. and Krishnamoorthy, V.: How to make N2 listen to you in Steel Making!, International
Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, 2(10), 1-5, 2011.
[52] The Balance (2019), Steel Grades and Properties, Available: https://www.balance.com/steel-grade-2340174
[53] Tyagher, S. T.; Akpen, G. D. and Obam, S. O.: Causes of Structural Failure of Buildings in Nigeria, Global Journal of
Engineering Research, 6(2), 133-136, 2007.
[54] Total Materia: Effect of Phosphorus on the Properties of Carbon Steels: Part One, 2017 / Classification of Carbon and Low-
Alloy Steels.. Available: https://www.totalmateria.com/articles/Art62.htm
ISSN 1584 - 2665 (printed version); ISSN 2601 - 2332 (online); ISSN-L 1584 - 2665
copyright © University POLITEHNICA Timisoara, Faculty of Engineering Hunedoara,
5, Revolutiei, 331128, Hunedoara, ROMANIA
http://annals.fih.upt.ro
114 | F a s c i c u l e 2
View publication stats

Quality Evaluation of Commercially Available Steels in Some Selected Nigerian Markets

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Quality Evaluation of Commercially Available Steels in Some Selected Nigerian Markets

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Quality evaluation of commercially available steels in some selected Nigerian

Article · July 2019

Yusuf Lanre Shuaib-Babata Reuben Adewuyi

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ajao Kabiru Suleiman Ibrahim Owolabi Ambali

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Tiles Production View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Y.L. SHUAIB-BABATA, 2.R.A. ADEWUYI, 3.K.S. AJAO, 4.I.O. AMBALI,

QUALITY EVALUATION OF COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE STEELS IN

 Chemical Analysis of the Test Specimens

[14] https://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=13027, [Accessed 19 December, 2018]

View publication stats

You might also like